[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Universal binary support for Mac OS X

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Feb 5 16:53:46 CET 2006


On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 04:07:45PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:23:07PM +0100, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> > On 05/02/2006, at 14.30, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > 
> > >On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:39:27PM +0100, Dan Villiom Podlaski  
> > >Christiansen wrote:
> > >
> > >I've been wondering about this fat binary thing for some time, I'm not
> > >sure if it's a good idea in the first place.  Then again, it's  
> > >probably here to stay..
> > 
> > There are two ways to generate a fat binary: Either by passing more  
> > than one -arch flag to GCC and/or ld, or by separately building a  
> > binary for each architecture and combine them with 'lipo'. Adding  
> > cross-compiling support to FFmpeg would probably require at least as  
> > many changes as just doing the fat binary all at once.
> > 
> > Mac applications that use FFmpeg ? such as VLC ? will need a fat  
> > FFmpeg as they move to universal binaries.
> I just tend to think that universal binaries are a bad idea.  Then again

absolutely agree, ok there might be exceptions but libav*/ffmpeg isnt one
of them. i mean some universal boot/root discs or such might be fun but a
large random lib? wheres the advantage? 2+x net bandwidth 2+x diskspace
to avoid a little javascript/.. which shows the user just the one
correct download (and yeah if it cant be done with either client or
serverside scripts then patch all browsers to have a cputype variable
available ...)

and to be honest i dont care if foobar will need it
1. its technically stupid
2. will need != needs
3. if x (will) need it then the x developers should tell us about that ...


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list